The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held that the Consumer Protection Act serves as a complementary measure alongside other laws and allows multiple legal remedies. It was further held that remedies under this act are supplementary to other legislatures. Brief Facts of the Case The Appellant...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held that the Consumer Protection Act serves as a complementary measure alongside other laws and allows multiple legal remedies. It was further held that remedies under this act are supplementary to other legislatures.
Brief Facts of the Case
The Appellant had purchased a plot for Rs. 55 lakhs. Subsequently, the Appellant and Respondent entered a Builder's Buyer Agreement, where the Respondent had agreed to construct a four-story residential complex on this land, investing his own money in exchange for a 50% share in each floor. The agreement had stipulated completion within 24 months. Due to various issues, the Appellant had filed a civil suit for injunctions against the Respondent. During the proceedings, the Respondent had invoked the Arbitration Clause in their agreement, leading to the suit's disposal. Later, with persisting differences, the Appellant filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the complaint, stating that a civil suit was pending despite the Appellant's counsel clarifying its disposal. A subsequent review application had also been dismissed on the same grounds. Consequently, the Appellant moved to the National Commission with an appeal.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The proceeding is set ex parte.
Observations by the Commission
The Commission observed that the State Commission had erroneously dismissed the Complaint, asserting it was not maintainable due to a pending suit in Civil Court. However, the Commission highlighted that this reasoning was flawed. Citing Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, which stipulates that its provisions are supplementary to any other law in force, the Commission emphasized the coexistence of multiple legal remedies. It referenced the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Imperia Structures Ltd. Vs. Anil Patni & Anr. (2020), which held that remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are additional to those available under other special statutes. Consequently, the Commission found the State Commission's view that the Consumer Complaint was inadmissible due to pending Civil Court matters and arbitration options unsustainable. Furthermore, it held that an arbitration clause does not bar the entertainment of a complaint by a Redressal Agency under the Consumer Protection Act, as this Act's remedies are supplementary to any other existing laws.
The Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the State Commission's order.
Case Title: Govind Narain Gupta Vs. Sudhakar Nath
Case Number: F.A. No. 612/2021